Enter your email to subscribe:

The Vermont Supreme Court denied the application for bar admission of an applicant with a history of criminal and financial responsibility issues. Of particular significance to the court were issues relating to the adequacy of the applicant disclosures concerning these problems in law school applications and in the bar's character and fitness process. The applicant had been denied admission in New York.

The applicant's testimony on the issue of the law school applications (the applicant had a j.d. and a master's degree)was summarized:

Regarding his lack of candor on his law school applications, he
maintained that he never had any intent to be deceitful and explained that once
he became aware that he had a duty to disclose items, he did so
immediately. Applicant explained that he thought his juvenile record was
sealed and not subject to disclosure on his J.D. application. Further, he
asserted that he disclosed his convictions after he learned that he was
required to provide the law school with that information. Upon
questioning, applicant was unclear about whether he had forgotten about his
juvenile convictions or simply thought that he was not required to disclose
them. He also did not provide an explanation for why he made a late
disclosure of one juvenile infraction, but not of the others. Applicant
admitted that he realized he was required to disclose a conditional discharge
and therefore disclosed his harassment conviction, but maintained that the
bad-check conviction was not required to be disclosed because he remembered
that the matter was dismissed, even though the paperwork revealed
otherwise.

Concerning his LL.M. application, applicant testified that an employee
at American advised him that he was not required to disclose his juvenile
convictions. He also opined that he was not required to reveal his
administrative probation at Cooley because the question asked only about
academic and conduct probation. Applicant sought to admit a recent letter
from a dean at the law school, indicating that the school would not have
required disclosure of administrative probation or juvenile convictions, but
the Commissioner excluded the letter as hearsay.

The court emphasized the duty to full candor:

Overall, while some of applicant’s answers may have, in some quibbling
sense, been correct, they were certainly not complete, nor were they in keeping
with his affirmation at the end of the application that he had answered all
questions “fully and frankly.” What applicant fails to comprehend is that
in answering questions about his past, the best response is the one that most
fully answers the question. Evasive or incomplete answers, although
arguably not incorrect, do not fulfill an applicant’s responsibility to be
truthful and honest. Nor do such answers give us confidence in the
applicant’s ability to be honest and trustworthy in the practice of law.
See V.R.A.B. § 11(b)(1) (stating that process of screening applicants for
good moral character is to exclude individuals who have demonstrated
“dishonesty or lack of trustworthiness in carrying out responsibilities”).
Each of these instances of nondisclosure individually might not compel us
to conclude that applicant lacks good moral character. In the aggregate,
however, applicant’s repeated nondisclosure of his past, and his continuing
insistence that he has acted properly, do not give us confidence that applicant
understands the importance of honesty or the gravity of his behavior.

Whatever a court's reaction to pre- bar application issues in terms of the evaluation of the applicant's character, a lack of candor and acceptance of responsibility in the admission process is invariably fatal to the application. I am a bit troubled by the rejection of evidence from a law school regarding its interpretation of disclosure obligations on its admission application. (Mike Frisch)

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

The issue of whether and when a criminal action which has been legally “erased” must be disclosed became relevant to a case I am working on. Connecticut’s questionnaire is unclear as to whether these prior events must be disclosed. When I attempted to clarify this with the Bar Examining Committee, they were not able to give me an answer and had to defer (why the committee would need to defer is an even more interesting question). Eventually I was told that erased criminal actions do not need to be disclosed which appears to be contrary to the position of Vermont. In fact, Connecticut’s erasure statute is quite strong.

Nonetheless, even though Connecticut deems its actions erased, take a look at the federal Questionnaire for National Security Positions, SF-86, which requires that an applicant report police record information “regardless of whether the record has been ‘sealed’ or otherwise stricken from the court record.” This mandate is backed up with a warning that “knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines up to $10,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment”.

So although the Vermont court makes the question of what much be disclosed sound obvious, it isn’t.